Tell me again why tenure is a good idea…
California professor flunks Kuwaiti’s pro-U.S. essay
A 17-year-old Kuwaiti student whose uncles were kidnapped and tortured by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s invaders more than a decade ago said his California college political science professor failed him for praising the United States in a final-exam essay last month.
Ahmad Al-Qloushi, a foreign student at Foothill College near San Jose, Calif., said he was told by professor Joseph A. Woolcock to get psychological treatment because of the pro-American views expressed in his essay.
“Apparently, if you are an Arab Muslim who loves America, you must be deranged,” said Mr. Al-Qloushi, who feared the failing grade could cost him his student visa.
“I didn’t want to be deported for having written a pro-American essay, so as soon as I left his office, I made an appointment with the school psychologist,” he said.
Mr. Woolcock did not respond to telephone and e-mail inquiries. College officials declined to comment, saying it is a confidential matter because Mr. Al-Qloushi and Mr. Woolcock have filed complaints.
This is microcosm of what, I think, is wrong with academia today. Rather than being a home for free thought and ideas as they routinely espouse, it has become a home of intolerance and group think.
And I can tall you from first hand experience that anyone criticizing this teacher will be attacked for trying to stifle academic freedom. Irony is lost on the dumb.
(Having said the above, the kid could have failed the paper and made the quote up. OR potentially the most likely scenario is that the kid failed the paper because he can’t write AND the Professor is a moonbat. I’d pay 10 bucks to see the paper. Still, if the quote is accurate, the Professor is the one who needs both psychological therapy and a pink slip.)
Update The (as yet unverified) paper can be found here. (I’ve only skim read the first half.)
As many of you know there are a few Poli Sci professor bloggers. I emailed James Joyner and Steven Taylor and asked if they would mind grading one more paper. I’ll (probably) reserve any comment until I read what they say. Still, the nature of the assignment itself appears to lends credence to the fact the professor is a goofball.
BTW- The quality of the paper and the level of goofballedness of the professor do not have to correlate in any way.
Update 2: Poli Sci Professor Steven Taylor has his say. He gives it a “low D.” I agree with 99.99% of what Steven says but I will excerpt the kid in his own defense.
The United States constitution might have excluded the majority of people at the time. But it progressed and America like every nation in the world progressed
So the kid did at least stumble into answering the question. (albeit for only a mere sentence fragment)
By and large (as always) the liberals will focus on the fact that a 17 year old Kuwaiti kid has trouble with english as if that is somehow an excuse for the professor telling the kid that if he liked America he needed psychological therapy. Conversely, conservatives will find the offense of the professor far more egregious than a kid failing a paper.
My bottom line is this. If the professor really said it, he should be canned.
Update 3: James Joyner must have been longing for his red pen days.– And his subject line sums the whole thing up.
AND Leopold Stotch, also a blogging Poli Sci professor says, “I doubt I would have given him more than a D” in the comments.
Quote from UK:
“Er, Rob, I can only speak of myself of course, but the answer to your question from my view, would be a PhD in Psychology.”
The real world has no need of your “phycho babble.” Real people deal with their problems.
Such things have stopped parents having the right to spank their child etc. And we no better off now than in any other period thanks to ” psychology”
Hey Julie: what’s really sad is that you think that D&Z’s writers’ argument boils down to “white people suck.”
It does nothing of the kind, of course, but it’s interesting that you jumped to that conclusion. Are you white? Do people tell you that you suck? Do you think that white people are unjustly accused of sucking? Why would you connect white people sucking to the Constitution?
I don’t understand.
Hey Julie: what’s really sad is that you think that D&Z’s writers’ argument boils down to “white people suck.” It does nothing of the kind, of course, but it’s interesting that you jumped to that conclusion.
No, what’s sad is that you find it necessary to misquote me to make your lame post.
Are you white?
Why, are you a racist?
Do people tell you that you suck? Do you think that white people are unjustly accused of sucking?
No, but people have told me that you suck. Do you think you are unjustly accused of sucking?
Why would you connect white people sucking to the Constitution?
Why would you?
I don’t understand.
Silly, moonbat! People like you never do!
Julie, do you make a good friend?
Just a tip: There are three major aspects to achieving success in social relationships. The first is an ability to manage your own emotions and to express them in the right way. The second is an aptitude for empathizing with others: putting yourself in their emotional “shoes” and establishing a mutual understanding. The third skill – handling emotions in others – is the capacity to correctly interpret other people’s emotions as directed toward you, deflecting them, if necessary, and is the most difficult one to acquire. If you develop these three abilities, you will know when to speak your mind and when not to, how to change someone’s mood for the better, and how to anticipate problem areas in your friendships and be clear about the best ways of working them out.
Julie, you talk about intelligence, I would consider you don’t know the first thing about it, but why would you? A single definition of intelligence has eluded psychologists for nearly a century, yet this is the area of psychology most extensively researched. It is not simply of academic intrest either, since we have probably all come across intelligence tests of one sort or another at some point during our lives.
Some animal species are naturally “smarter” than others. Dog’s, dolphins, and monkeys, for example, can be trained to perform complex and demanding tasks completely beyond the ability of other species like sheep or fish, while humans are more intelligent than even the cleverest chimpanzees. Variations in intellectual ability also occur within humans.
Psychologists have been divided between those who view intelligence as a general core ability, and those who believe it to be composed of a number of distinct and seperate factors. Intuitively, we recognize that some people are more intellectual, verbally adept, musically gifted, or artistic than their peers.
Our brains represent the source of intelligent thought and action. An individual brain consists of between 8 to 10 billion nerve cells, each of which has between 1,000 and 10,000 connections to other neurones. What is unusual about human brains is that a large proportion of these connections are not devoted to physical or physiological functions, and are therefore left “free” for learning, communicating, thinking, remembering, and reasoning. The brain is divided into 3 concentric layers.
The central core, which controls balance and smooth muscle movement, the sense organs, and regulates metabolism.
The limbic system, which is concerned with satisfying basic needs and instincs; The cerebrum, where sensations are registered, is also dedicated to the processing of higher mental functions like voluntary actions, decision making, and the formulation of plans.
Julie, although each brain area has specialized functions, it still interacts with other sections. The cerebrum wraps around the central core and the limbic system, and is more developed in humans than any other other species. Its outer layer is called the cerebral cortex. It has a folded and wrinkled appearance and the term “gray matter” comes from its color. It is divided into two seperate hemispheres, which i’ve previously mentioned, which look like mirror images of each other, yet have very different functions.
Continued from above……Sight, hearing, smell, and taste are processed by specific areas of the central cortex present on both sides of the brain. The remainder of the cortex (about three-quarters) is concerned with intelligence, memory, learning, and language, but such functions are hemisphere-specific. Here’s just a reminder for you Julie. The left hemisphere generally controls written and spoken language, mathematical calculation, and complex logical and analytical activities. The right hemisphere has limited language and mathematical capabilities, but excels at spatial ability and non-verbal reasoning. It can construct geometric and perspective drawings, and identify faces and facial expressions.
In reality, all parts of the brain interact with one another as one unit. The brain is an extraordinary tool, and humans, even you Julie, have been granted the gift of supreme intelligence over all other species. The opportunity to maximize this potential lies ahead of you and is well within your control. My observation of your posts, is that you need to boost your intelligence, to help you interact with others while your here online. Intelligence is far more complex than you Julie can imagine. It would be helpful if you could support what you have to say with facts, otherwise they are just generalizations and sweeping statements, and that is no use to anyone.
Julie one more thing:
I was wondering if you could give me Chomsky examples, specifically, that you really disagree with. That way I would know exactly what writings you are talking about, and I can read those and see what I think.
Also…who was your source for the holocaust denial ordeal…was it Cohn or someone else?
Thanks. Good day.
r.a.
UK: Thanks for demonstrating once again your abysmal lack of insight. I, and no one else I know, have any interest in cut and paste jobs from your psych 101 textbook. You’re boring people to death, which I assume you also do in real life.
r.a.: Do your own research.
Evidence, please Julie, once again your are demonstrating your ability to bring forth generalizations/sweeping statements. Are you in denial? I would consider you are. Julie, you need to think straight. You’re probably barely aware of the inner dialogue going on inside of you, those private thoughts that pass through your head. They are useful for assessing progress, development, and improvement within yourself. If unchecked, they can be psychologically corrosive and undermine your chances of success. You do not have to accept self-talk as gospel – the ability to monitor and challenge these thoughts is part of good personal intelligence. You don’t have to believe such thoughts; try to call on yourself to find evidence to support them though.
I would also consider, you have a problem with your emotional intelligence. You do have everything to gain from developing your emotional intelligence. Focus on improving empathy by trying to understand the motivations behind the behavior of others. Learn to resolve conflict by picking up good negotiation skills: effective listening is as important as effective talking. Develop your knowledge of group dynamics by watching and learning from socially skilled people in action.
This will lead you in good stead.
Julie wrote:
r.a.: Do your own research.
You started the argument. You brought up the whole chomsky argument. I am asking for what sources you used against Chomsky. Notice that I asked what chomsky writings that YOU disagree with. Do you read the material yourself, or just spout the opinions of others?
Don’t give me that bullshit about doing my own research. This is debate. You have told me that Chomsky dismisses the deaths of millions of S.E. Asians. Fine. I am asking where you read this, what was your source. Also, about the denial of the Holocaust I have asked for YOUR source. What did YOU read? Isnt that fair?
Tell me specifically what you’re talking about. It’s funny how you retreat when I ask you for sources, or specifics. It makes me think that you dont know what you’re talking about. However, I’m sure that I am mistaken, and that you do actually read and form your own opinions…
Can you provide evidence, or do you just like to stick to insults and stereotypes?
r.a.
Pile on Julie! She’s insecure! She’s angry! She thinks we’re moonbats!
But she’s the moonbat, right guys? Nyah, nyah, nyah, julie is a mooooonbat ….
Psychobabbler: Wait, I think I can hear my inner dialogue . . . it says you are a real nutjob. Get help, psycho.
r.a., Let me rephrase it for you: DO YOUR OWN DAMN RESEARCH. There. hth.
Julie:
I am just asking for what you have read, and where you read it.
Why would you hold back on that? It makes no sense.